Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: dma: arm-dma350: document generic and combined IRQ topologies
From: Jun Guo <hidden>
Date: 2026-03-23 02:09:21
Also in:
dmaengine, linux-devicetree, lkml
Hi Krzysztof, On 3/20/2026 6:04 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
EXTERNAL EMAIL On 20/03/2026 10:58, Peter Chen wrote:quoted
On 26-03-20 10:43:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:quoted
EXTERNAL EMAIL On 20/03/2026 10:38, Peter Chen wrote:quoted
On 26-03-20 10:12:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:quoted
EXTERNAL EMAIL On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 06:17:21PM +0800, Jun Guo wrote:quoted
Update the DMA-350 DT binding to match the current driver behavior. Allow both: - "arm,dma-350" as the generic compatible, and - "cix,sky1-dma-350", "arm,dma-350" for SoC-specific fallback usage. Also document interrupt topology variants supported by hardware integration: - one combined interrupt for all channels, or - one interrupt per channel (up to 8 channels). This patch is Assisted-by: Cursor: GPT-5.3 Codex.Wrong tag, please read carefully the guideline before using LLM tools.Hi Krzysztof, It is the trade off for coding-assistants.rst suggestion and passing checkpatch.pl. Currently, checkpatch.pl reports the error for tag without email address. So we choose to add tag description at patch context.You still have to use correct tag.You mean even checkpatch.pl reports below error, we still add it "Assisted-by: Cursor: GPT-5.3 Codex" as tag?Yes, after fixing the contents (that's not entirely correct format I think). Hopefully someone will fix checkpatch one day...
I cannot find any commit records referencing AI via "Co-developed-by" in the latest kernel GitHub repository, and I also cannot locate any text describing the correct way to cite AI in the submitting-patches.rst file. In this case, how can I confirm the current correct format?
quoted
WARNING: Non-standard signature: Assisted-by: #14: Assisted-by: Cursor: GPT-5.3 Codex ERROR: Unrecognized email address: 'Cursor: GPT-5.3 Codex' #14: Assisted-by: Cursor: GPT-5.3 Codexquoted
You ignored rest of the email message, so I assume you agree that you should not send LLM microslop?I am not the patch author, Jun will reply it.Ah, sorry, I did not notice that. Best regards, Krzysztof
Best regards, Jun